Summations Only

Do you realize that most political ads people hear or see are on television or radio? Both of those cost lots of money. If you restrict the amount of money people donate, you let the media and unions dominate what is said on tv and radio. Other than fox news and right wing radio, the media is extremely left wing. If you people would take your blinders off, you would see how everything is slanted pro democrat and anti republican. It is even more slanted anti conservative. You people cannot see that though because I have never met a group of people who were so far to the left they were neighbors of karl marx.

Do you not understand how the government under leftist control demands the private sector to do as it wishes? The government wanted minorities and certain neighborhoods to obtain loans regardless of ability to repay. The link I gave showed that the government threatened banks with real and severe punishment if they did not comply. The government severely punishes other businesses who do not comply with regulations and demands already. What makes you think banks are any different?Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

Nobody said that campaigns couldn't run TV and radio ads. They should just be paid for after a candidate qualifies for public financing.As it stands right now, < 2% of people contribute to campaigns. Who do you think those candidates listen to most? Its the money first, the voters second. If the money that they get was from public financing, then at the very least the burden of pacifying their donors for the sake of money is gone.

Sorry but you get no sympathy from me, the media problem you mention only exists because Conservatives (those following the Reagan coup) created that situation. It's not my fault they were so brainless.Had the post coup Conservative not deregulated media, not repealed the "Fairness Doctrine", the situation you fear would not exist.As a life long Republican I can only cry as the Grand Old Party continues the move towards a totally Fascist Theocratic party.Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

But that's inaccurate. Loans given under the CRA program weren't given "regardless of ability to pay." CRA participants had to meet the same lending requirements as white people.All the CRA did was prevent a bank from taking deposits in an area that they wouldn't offer mortgages in, because it's fundamentally unfair to enter a community, accept deposits from minorities, and then turn around and only loan those deposits to affluent whites.Now, it's true that loans were given regardless of ability to pay, by banks, and that this is the cause of the 2008 recession; but the government didn't force banks to do that. The government tried to stop banks from doing that but the regulators who voiced those objections were replaced by industry plants. Banks wanted to offer loans regardless of the borrower's ability to pay because it didn't matter to the banks - they were going to be immediately paid back in full when they turned around and sold the loan to someone else. The government tried to stop that process. They're not the ones that caused it. That's a conservative myth.

You're freaking out because you actually believe there is a difference between the two guys. There isn't, other than the party they represent, which, is the same overall.With the exception of a few propaganda driven opinions on gays, there is NO difference between two members of the upper class doing the bidding of big business.It's the same entity pulling the puppet strings.- Oni

Muslim and communist/socialist Obama fits the description of the biblical anti-christ. Either he will win the election or be defeated and become the Secretary General of the UN.

It's the ears, right? "And lo, he shall come with big head-handles that look like he got double-slapped at a Cinnabon."

I too predict that he will either win or lose.

An American Secretary General? I'd like to see someone convince the Chinese and the Russians of that.

Remember that he is a Muslim Communist and not a US citizen and doesn't have to wear camouflage in the Black Helicopters.

But you have no facts to back this up do you.
I see you refuse to look at the actual facts and instead just parrot the propaganda you hear.Show us some evidence to back up this assertion. Not a link that also parrots the same assertion with no evidence. That is why they are called regulations. But there was no regulation that you are asserting.

You forgot Kenyan.

It is actually those who are politically active and informed that are listened to the most. The ones who are not active or informed are the ones most influenced by political ads. If you want to win you must listen to the informed and to those who provide you money to put out ads. Less than 2% of the public may contribute to campaigns but that doesn't mean their point of view isn't represented. The people with money who put out ads seem to have ads that reverberate with common folks in the conservative arena. These conservatives are often dirt poor and they appreciate that someone has enough money to get their point of view out. If that is restricted, poor conservatives will no longer have a voice in political ads.

If you want to win, you must listen influence the largest number of voters. That does not necessarily mean influencing politically active or informed voters, but it might mean getting influential ones on your side. In fact, winning might very well mean duping uninformed voters.I'd also disagree that dirt poor people and uninformed people are predominantly conservative, or that becoming informed means being fed predominantly a conservative or liberal message. Being informed means being provided facts regardless of which side they favor.Of course, it appears that reality itself has a liberal bias, so perhaps that's one way to justify what you are saying. If fair and balanced means equal time based on ideology, perhaps ultra-conservatives do need a thumb on the scale.